Contents
Need help and don't know where to find it?
I came across this award reviewing a draft and it appears to be a notable award mentioned in several articles. Thought you might be interested in creating an article. See also es:Gourmand World Cookbook Awards. S0091 (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hm, it has an entry in 8 language wikis. Definitely seems worth investigating, thanks! Valereee (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 62
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 62, March – April 2024
- IEEE and Haaretz now available
- Let's Connect Clinics about The Wikipedia Library
- Spotlight and Wikipedia Library tips
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The Merchant of Venice
Hi,
Could I ask why you have vandalised the Merchant of Venice article and then protected it in its vandalised state?
Thanks,
Alex AlexAndrews (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- @AlexAndrews, Wikipedia has a very specific definition of vandalism which is editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge. You can find more information at WP:vandalism.
- You have edit-warred to insist upon the addition of content for which you have not been able to get consensus, and you have been casting aspersions on highly-experienced and long-trusted editors who have been pretty darn patient with you while you've done that. Despite the fact several of them have tried to explain the applicable policies to you multiple times, you are apparently unable to or unwilling to understand those policies. This is not serving you well. Valereee (talk) 11:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Valereee, to quote your reply:
... editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia ...
- The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide facts that are informative and educational. The content I have added is not only factual but informative and educational. That informative and educational material has then been deliberately removed (repeatedly), thereby obstructing the project's purpose. Ergo, according to the definition you have quoted that is vandalism. You and the other editors on the article have vandalised it by removing the informative and educational factual material I have added.
- .
- I should like to know why?
- .
- My guess is that there is a chronic case of Groupthink where the article is concerned:
Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome ... The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup").
- The repeated removal of my informative and educational factual material from the article is wholly irrational given the stated purpose of Wikipedia.
- .
- So again I ask: why have you vandalised the Merchant of Venice article? Is it because the consensus of the editors on the article is the irrational decision to vandalise it? AlexAndrews (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- @AlexAndrews, I did not vandalize the article. I protected it from someone who doesn't understand Wikipedia but thinks they do, and because of that is editing disruptively. But you're certainly free to report me to WP:AIV if you think I'm a vandal or to WP:XRV if you believe my admin action needs scrutiny. Valereee (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- As I clearly explained, you did vandalise the article given the stated purpose of Wikipedia that you yourself quoted. You are contradicting yourself and trying to explain away your irrational decision-making by falsely accusing me of editing disruptively (which is, in fact, what the other editors are doing) which I believe is called casting aspersions.
- .
- So that is first vandalism, then denial of that vandalism through its false rationalisation, and now casting aspersions.
- .
- All perfectly in line with Groupthink. AlexAndrews (talk) 05:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) (Non-administrator comment) AlexAndrews, you have been pointed to the explanation on WP:VANDALISM. You need to never bring it up again in contexts that don't apply or you risk being blocked for a lack of civility or of competence. The same applies to accusations of co-ordinated editing, irrationality, inconsistency, aspersions, groupthink and whatever other terminologies you have been throwing around in attacking and trying to discredit other editors. You're being given some leeway because you're new but you should expect people's patience to run out soon. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Encyclopedic content is non-contentious material that is informative and educational.
- The additions I have made to the article are non-contentious material that is informative and educational; in other words, encyclopedic content.
- Yet that encyclopedic content I have added has been repeatedly removed - that is the definition of vandalism:
... editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia ...
- So please don't falsely accuse me of using the term incorrectly, otherwise you risk being blocked for casting aspersions. AlexAndrews (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) (Non-administrator comment) AlexAndrews, you have been pointed to the explanation on WP:VANDALISM. You need to never bring it up again in contexts that don't apply or you risk being blocked for a lack of civility or of competence. The same applies to accusations of co-ordinated editing, irrationality, inconsistency, aspersions, groupthink and whatever other terminologies you have been throwing around in attacking and trying to discredit other editors. You're being given some leeway because you're new but you should expect people's patience to run out soon. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- @AlexAndrews, I did not vandalize the article. I protected it from someone who doesn't understand Wikipedia but thinks they do, and because of that is editing disruptively. But you're certainly free to report me to WP:AIV if you think I'm a vandal or to WP:XRV if you believe my admin action needs scrutiny. Valereee (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrative action review regarding an action which you performed. Thank you. AlexAndrews (talk) 06:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 April 2024
- In the media: Censorship and wikiwashing looming over RuWiki, edit wars over San Francisco politics and another wikirace on live TV
- News and notes: A sigh of relief for open access as Italy makes a slight U-turn on their cultural heritage reproduction law
- WikiConference report: WikiConference North America 2023 in Toronto recap
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Newspapers (Not WP:NOTNEWS)
- Recent research: New survey of over 100,000 Wikipedia users
- Traffic report: O.J., cricket and a three body problem
Seriously, paid editors like this exists?
Talk:Jack_Antonoff#Requested_Changes.
Wow. Do you think she's expensive? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- lol...well, she certainly seems to be experienced, and she understands the whole "we're all volunteers, make this easy for us" thing. There's been a similar paid editor at Bob McDonald (businessman) for years. We had to limit their requests, as the urge to polish became absurd. I finally just removed the section on board work as every time he went on or off a board, there was an edit request to update that section. Valereee (talk) 10:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red May 2024
Women in Red | May 2024, Volume 10, Issue 5, Numbers 293, 294, 305, 306, 307
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 06:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
This week's article for improvement (week 18, 2024)
Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is:
Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Pool (cue sports) • Antarctic Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • |
---|
WikiCup 2024 May newsletter
The second round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 April. This round was particularly competitive: each of the 32 contestants who advanced to Round 3 scored at least 141 points. This is the highest number of points required to advance to Round 3 since 2014.
The following scorers in Round 2 all scored more than 500 points:
- Sammi Brie (submissions) with 707 points, mostly from 45 good article nomination reviews and 12 good articless about radio and television;
- Generalissima (submissions) with 600 points, mostly from 12 good articles and 12 did you know nominations about coinage and history;
- SounderBruce (submissions) with 552 points, mostly from a featured article about the 2020 Seattle Sounders FC season, three featured lists, and two good articles;
- BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 548 points, mostly from a featured article about the snooker player John Pulman, two featured lists, and one good article;
- voorts (submissions) with 530 points, mostly from two featured articles (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three good articles.
The full scores for Round 2 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 18 featured articles, 22 featured lists, and 186 good articles, 76 in the news credits and at least 200 did you know credits. They have conducted 165 featured article reviews, as well as 399 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 21 articles to featured topics and good topics.
Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed during Round 3, which starts on 1 May at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.
If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Tech News: 2024-18
MediaWiki message delivery 03:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)